Is Alice's CONCLUSION VALID using the LAW OF DETACHMENT? Explain your reasoning.

Question

Alice: "If TIME stopped time for you, he could stop time for me?

Mad Hatter: "He only stops time at tea time."

Alice: "SO then it's always tea time there?"

VALID or INVALID: explain

Answer 1

The conclusion Alice reaches, "SO then it's always tea time there?" is not valid using the Law of Detachment.

The Law of Detachment requires two conditional statements, a premise (If P, then Q) and a given fact (P). Based on these, it allows us to deduce a conclusion (Q).

In this conversation, Alice initially proposes a conditional statement: "If TIME stopped time for you, he could stop time for me?" However, the Mad Hatter's response, "He only stops time at tea time," does not directly confirm or deny the premise. The Mad Hatter's statement is not a clear condition (P), and it does not logically establish a cause-effect relationship between time stopping at tea time and always being tea time there (Q). Therefore, Alice's conclusion is invalid using the Law of Detachment.